This quote from the article indicates the opposite effect, actually! I'd like to see the study that concluded this, but it's an easy statement for me to believe.

> "As for connecting marijuana to the legal opioid crisis, Spicer has it exactly backwards. Greater access to marijuana has actually led to declines in opioid use, overdoses and other problems."

Yeah I saw that. So I'm confused on where he's getting this idea, since as far as I'm aware of current research...the trend is the opposite.

He doesn't listen to experts or research. Instead, he uses common sense.

“So really,” continued Eric, “I should be saying sorry to you, for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Instead of considering all the evidence, I just applied some common sense—otherwise known as prejudice—and came up with a totally wrong answer.”

― Lucy Hawking, George's Secret Key to the Universe

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret...

It's extremely difficult to find an addict that didn't "try pot first" but that's only one part of the equation.

Where it breaks down is when you draw the correlation as "most hard drug users have tried pot, so most of the people who tried pot become hardcore drug users". OF course we know that not to be the case.

However if you only use the first part of the definition (as many anti marijuana advocates do) then you must acknowledge the amount of hard drug users who smoke cigarettes ( a lot ) therefore cigarettes are also a gateway drug. Still legal.

I too am surprised this theory is still being peddled.

Personal/anecdotal:

I worked near addicts in treatment for a few years, (no I am not an expert or counselor it was a tech role) and I noticed many of them smoked cigarettes. Many of them still smoked weed too for medical purposes and it simply didn't have the adverse affects on their life that the "other" drugs did (heroin, meth, etc). It's simply not in the same class.

I'm not a pot smoker and never have been, but I strongly agree with legalization based on what I've seen.

What does it matter since the prohibition of cannabis has never been about harm. You can have all the studies in the world and it won't matter a damn... and my proof of this? Why is industrial hemp illegal?

dupont!

53% of British Columbians have tried marijuana, and 2.4% use opioids. Not much of a gateway...

Heh heh. When I was growing up there was a big push to prevent kids from smoking, because smoking was supposed to be the gateway drug to marijuana. When I got to college I heard the same thing from all the smokers: "I never had any desire to smoke cigarettes until after I started smoking pot."

likely a result of its questionable legality, since cigarettes are a perfectly valid reason to smell like smoke.

I wonder what percentage of legal opioid users move onto heroin and obtaining the drug via illegal means. If more, then at very least the theory is applied in a hypocritical way.

This is one basis of the fentanyl crisis in BC, eg http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/north-v...

Isn't the current opioid problem caused by Drs over prescribing oxycotins due to the pharma company basically lying / manipulating the data on addition and redosing for greater profit?

i.e. nothing at all to do with cannabis

Was needing roof access to replace a controller or sensor last year and a 30-something manager had to unlock door & escort me. I mentioned was nice to have stairs & a door instead of ladder+hatch. Their response was it was a detriment, as employees were going out and smoking cigs so they had to lock it. As an aside, they said "luckily nobody smoked pot and jumped off the roof". I chuckled and waited for the punchline, but one never came.